News:

"There is a terrible desperation to the increasingly pathetic rationalizations from the climate denial camp. This comes as no surprise if you take the long view; every single undone paradigm in history has died kicking and screaming, and our current petroleum paradigm 🐉🦕🦖 is no different. The trick here is trying to figure out how we all make it to the new ⚡ paradigm without dying ☠️ right along with the old one, kicking, screaming or otherwise." - William Rivers Pitt

Jeff McMahon , ContributorI cover green technology, energy and the environment from Chicago. Full Bio Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Quote

“Yes, you read that correctly: The U.S. could achieve the 2030 emission cuts this year,”

“Common sense can recognize that coal-laden trains from Wyoming, or even gas fracked from shale fields, will struggle to compete with direct-delivered breezes and sunshine as renewable technologies cheapen,” according to Rice University Prof. Daniel Cohan. Photographer: George Frey/Bloomberg (at article link)

A dramatic slump in coal production has pushed U.S. carbon emissions so low that, were the trend to continue, the U.S. would achieve its 2030 emissions goals this year, according to one professor’s analysis of data from the Energy Information Administration.

Coal production has plummeted 29 percent in 2016 compared to the same period last year, crushed in part by cheap natural gas, which emits about half as much carbon. Unless coal rebounds, the U.S. could achieve a 32 percent reduction in emissions from 2005 levels, according to Daniel Cohan, an assistant professor of environmental engineering at Rice University.

Quote

That happens to match the final goal set for the year 2030 in the Clean Power Plan (CPP).

“It’s still conceivable to meet CPP this year, depending on the weather and how much further natural gas prices rise,” Cohan told me via email.

EIA doesn’t expect that to happen.

The agency forecasts a colder winter and rising natural gas prices , which would make coal attractive again to power producers.But the notoriously fossil-friendly agency may be overestimating coal’s prospects, and Cohan notes that EIA repeatedly lowered its carbon emissions estimates as actual data on First Quarter coal use arrived in recent editions of its Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO).

“We’re unlikely to sustain the Q1 trend, which benefited from warm weather and cheap gas. But I’m skeptical of EIA’s forecast of a Q4 rebound, given that its STEO’s have been consistently overestimating coal use. A rebound would have to overcome coal plant retirements, coal mining bankruptcies, and the possibility of another warm winter.”

In its June Outlook, the EIA noted an unusually large stockpile of coal left on hand at the end of last winter:

“Warmer-than-normal temperatures experienced throughout the United States in March 2016 (and the winter as a whole) and coal’s continuing loss of market share to natural gas for electric power generation contributed to the increase in coal stockpiles,” the document says.

In addition to warm weather and low natural gas prices, Cohan credits ”a broad array of emerging and cheapening technologies” for transforming power markets, including inexpensive renewables and increasing efficiency.

In scrutinizing EIA’s data, Cohan noticed its emissions estimates were increasingly approaching the Clean Power Plan goal. He realized that if the coal rebound fails to materialize, the goal could be attained.

“Yes, you read that correctly: The U.S. could achieve the 2030 emission cuts this year,” Cohan wrote in a blog post he penned for Bloomberg Governance.

Even if the U.S. doesn’t achieve its 2030 goal this year, the EIA’s more conservative estimates still bring the country most of the distance. Carbon emissions had already fallen 15 percent from 2005 to 2014, the last year for which reliable figures are available. EIA estimates another 4.5 percent drop across 2015 and 2016.

Cohan thinks recent emissions will fall more than 4.5 percent, because the EIA tends to overestimate coal use, and overestimate the cost of renewables. Those EIA estimates also cover energy emissions in all sectors of the economy. Focusing just on the power sector covered by the Clean Power Plan, the cuts are more dramatic, according to Cohan: a 12 percent decline in power sector emissions from 2014 to 2016, adding up to a 25 percent decline from 2005 to 2016.

“If we end up just a few percent away from the 2030 target this year, it becomes tough to argue that CPP is unattainable or too costly,” Cohan said.

It could be argued, however, that the Clean Power Plan is unnecessary, because its long-term goal has come into view while the regulation remains idled in a court-imposed stay of execution. But without the Clean Power Plan, there’s nothing to prevent a protracted coal rebound in the future that could wipe out the emissions gains.

Quote

“EIA’s longer term Annual Energy Outlook forecasts an ongoing rebound in coal consumption,” Cohan said, ”if the Clean Power Plan is not implemented.”

Agelbert NOTE: WHY does the EIA prepare forecasts that EXCLUDE the Clean Power Plan? BECAUSE, as Forbes contributor Jeff McMahon says, the EIA is a NOTORIOSLY fossil-friendly agency. The EIA will dream up every excuse it can to DELAY the transition to 100% Renewable Energy. Remember that when you read any of their published stats and charts.

Logged

Leges Sine Moribus VanaeFaith, if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

By George Wuerthner On June 22, 2016 · In Forest Service, Logging, Public Land Management

Environmental regulations and endangered species protections are not at fault for Western logging’s decline.Note: the opinions expressed in this column are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of High Country News, its board or staff. If you’d like to share an opinion piece of your own, please write Betsy Marston atbetsym@hcn.org.

Critics of public lands like to say that timber jobs declined and mills closed over the last 20 years because environmental protections such as the Endangered Species Act and other laws made the cost of logging skyrocket. This complaint is repeated so often it is usually stated as unqualified truth.

If you believe the rhetoric, the way federal lands are managed has been the problem. If only there were more private owners of the land, local economies would prosper, and there would be stable, long-term stewardship.

If only that were true. But if you compare the mostly private wood-products industry in the state of Maine to the West’s experiences on public land, you find that environmental regulations had little to do with the demise of logging.Ninety percent of Maine is forested, and more than 93 percent of the state’s land is privately owned, mostly by large timber companies that sell trees to the wood-products industry.

If private lands lead to prosperity and healthy landscapes, Maine should be the poster child for the country. And unlike the West, Maine, imposes minimal regulations on private landowners. There are also almost no listed endangered species in Maine to harry the timber industry.

Yet today, the forest-products industry in Maine is a shadow of its former self. In 1980, there were 25 pulp and paper mills in the state. Today, two-thirds of those mills are gone. Since 1990, the state has lost 13,000 of its approximately 17,000 paper-industry jobs, including more than 2,300 in the past five years. The decline continues. Associated wood products companies in Maine have also seen a decline – everything from wood furniture, wood flooring and clothespin producers have closed up shop.

The decline in both employment and production in Maine was caused by the same forces that drastically cut forest industry jobs in the West: foreign competition, which brought in cheaper wood products, technological advances and new automation that allowed computers instead of people to run machinery. High energy prices and labor costs also played a role as plastic and steel moved in to replace wood.

Think about the brightly colored plastic Adirondack chairs for sale at Home Depot now replacing the wooden chairs on which they are modeled. Instead of wood rafters, steel-beam has replaced two-by-fours in some construction, and so forth. The decline in newspapers and print materials has also dramatically altered demand for pulp production. All of these factors are affecting the West’s wood industry as much as they affect Maine.

These days, most of the new sawmills and pulp mills built in the United States are in the South. Trees grow faster there, and unlike the Western United States, they can reach harvestable age in a decade or two. To the timber industry, the longer you have to wait to cut trees, the higher the risk. Your trees might die in a forest fire, a beetle outbreak or some other natural event. So locating your mills in places where you can grow a tree to merchantable size quickly is a smart business practice.

Furthermore, most of the Southern timberlands are flat and accessible year-round. In the steep mountains of the West, road construction costs are far greater, and snow limits seasonal access.

So that’s the picture: The decline of the Western wood products industry – like that in Maine – occurred because of economic realities that favor other regions of the globe. Blaming environmentalists, endangered species protection, or environmental regulations is easy. But blame fails to explain a changing world, or help us understand its nuances.

Unlike Maine, the West has an alternative. Its abundant public lands – in particular its wilderness areas, national parks and monuments – provides the foundation for another future for the region. While not all the changes that come with the “new” economy are welcome – take sprawl and increased impacts from recreational users – they can be managed if we make intelligent choices.

The West boasts iconic wildlands like Grand Canyon and Yellowstone national parks, the Owyhee Canyonlands and the Gila Wilderness.

Quote

In the end, federal ownership and protection of wildlands and open spaces is far superior to the Maine model of private ownership and maximized profits.

Our model gives us the chance to manage forests sensibly, and it offers at least some potential for a more sustainable future for Western communities.

George Wuerthneris a contributor to Writers on the Range, the opinion service of High Country News. He lives in Bend, Oregon, and is an ecologist who has published 38 books about Western environmental issues

Agelbert Observation: Given the trajectory of our "civilization" The Theory of Devolution, seems to have more going for it than the /theory of Evolution.

Quote

Organic life, we are told, has developed gradually from the protozoan to the philosopher, and this development, we are assured, is indubitably an advance. Unfortunately it is the philosopher, not the protozoan, who gives us this assurance. Bertrand Russell

Quote

"Human nature is bad. Good is a human product . . . A warped piece of wood must be steamed and forced before it is made straight; a metal blade must be put to the whetstone before it becomes sharp. Since the nature of people is bad, to become corrected they must be taught by teachers and to be orderly they must acquire ritual and moral principles." —Sun Tzu

“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished, unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” ― Voltaire

Quote

We are a banker constructed Imperialist nation, ruled by a consortium of global psychopaths, hell bent on destroying the very planet itself in their selfish quest for money, power and the control of all of us. At this rate the human race may not even be here for the 22nd century.

Quote

Isaiah 1:23 Your leaders are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loves gifts, and follow after rewards: they deny justice to the fatherless, neither does the plight of the widow come to them.

Isaiah 56:11 ...they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his district.

Romans 16:18 ...they serve their own belly; and by GOOD words and FAIR speeches deceive the minds of the simple.

Jer 9:5 ...they exhaust themselves in greed. Their habitation is in the midst of deceit...

Proverbs 22:16 they oppress the poor to increase their riches, and they give to the rich...

Psalm 26:10 In whose hands is mischief, and their right hand (priority) is full of bribes.

Psalm 5:9 There is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is truly wicked; their throat is an open tomb; they flatter with their tongue.

Psalm 12:2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbor: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.

Amos 5:7 They turn justice to bitterness, and neglect whats right in the earth 5:12 they afflict the just, they take a bribe, and they turn aside the poor from what's right.

2 Peter 2:18 they speak great swelling words of pride, they manipulate using the desires of the people, through much wantonness... 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption...

1Timonthy 6:5 Perverse men of corrupt minds, destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness...

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

2 Peter 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: a mind they have exercised with greedy practices; cursed men.

Ezekiel 33:31 ...they come to you as the people come ...they hear your words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they show much love, but their heart goes after their greed.

Jeremiah 9:3 they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth; they proceed from evil to evil, and they don't know God ...they deceive every one, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and exhaust themselves in greed. Their habitation is in the midst of deceit; because of deceit they refuse to know God ...their tongue is as an arrow shot out; it speaks deceit: he speaks peaceably to neighbors, but in his mind he lays their wait. Shall I not visit them for these things? says the LORD: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?

Proverbs 28:11 The rich man is wise in his own conceit; but the poor that have understanding will search him out.

Logged

Leges Sine Moribus VanaeFaith, if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

"In the last 40 years, our way of life has reduced the plant and animal population on this planet by 40 to 50%. We will die in a world that is HALF as flourishing with plants and animals as the world we were born to." - Kathleen Deen Moore, Writer and Senior Fellow, Spring Creek Project

Quote

"If God treats you well by teaching you a disastrous lesson, you never forget it". Ray Bradbury

Logged

Leges Sine Moribus VanaeFaith, if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Here's a video that is 100% accurate, if a bit melodramatic. Worshippers of fossil fuels are in total denial about the totally suicidal situation we find ourselves in. Peak DEATH is what we should be concerned with, not Peak oil.

Part One of Two. Next is Oxygen. What can I say. We f#*ked up bad. We tried to warn you, but not scare you. Should have worried less about scaring folks.

Methane (part one) and Oxygene (part two). One we are getting too much of. The other, we are losing. We have warned of the melting methane threat, but we had no idea. The words "abrupt", "catastrophic", and "collapse" have now entered the lexicon of Climate Change discussions. While trying to soft peddle the threat, we underestimated the feedback loops and runaway affects of secondary gasses and effects. Yes, the human body CAN take an average increase in temperature of a few degrees - but our food sources (grains and rice) cannot. Many scientists are done warning the public. They are saying "Good Bye". Seriously. This is not a joke or a sensationalist grab for attention. We blew it, big time.

Next we are going to look at the unexpected consequences and the effects on our atmospheric oxygen - which NASA tries to placate the public with "greener earth due to increased CO2!", yea, all better. But it's not. Notice the words "on land" in their report. But we don't get the bulk of our oxygene from land or plants on land. We get it from the oceans. And they are dying just as fast as other planetary systems. Sorry. But I'm just the messenger.

To VIEW ALL SOURCE MATERIALS please visit our playlist on Environment/Nature Published on Jun 17, 2016

Part One of Two. Next is Oxygen. What can I say. We f#*ked up bad. We tried to warn you, but not scare you. Should have worried less about scaring folks.

Methane (part one) and Oxygene (part two). One we are getting too much of. The other, we are losing. We have warned of the melting methane threat, but we had no idea. The words "abrupt", "catastrophic", and "collapse" have now entered the lexicon of Climate Change discussions. While trying to soft peddle the threat, we underestimated the feedback loops and runaway affects of secondary gasses and effects. Yes, the human body CAN take an average increase in temperature of a few degrees - but our food sources (grains and rice) cannot. Many scientists are done warning the public. They are saying "Good Bye". Seriously. This is not a joke or a sensationalist grab for attention. We blew it, big time.

Next we are going to look at the unexpected consequences and the effects on our atmospheric oxygen - which NASA tries to placate the public with "greener earth due to increased CO2!", yea, all better. But it's not. Notice the words "on land" in their report. But we don't get the bulk of our oxygene from land or plants on land. We get it from the oceans. And they are dying just as fast as other planetary systems. Sorry. But I'm just the messenger.

Under President Obama, the US has become a world leader on clean energy (say goodbye to this if Trump is elected).

Amazing gains on wind, solar, LED lighting and electric vehicles have all taken place since he took office in 2008. 23 states now use renewable electricity as a primary energy source, says the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Revolution Now, Accelerating Clean Energy, an annual report on this progress from the Department of Energy (DOE), shows how much costs have dropped since 2008 - 94% for LEDs; 73% for batteries; 54% for distributed solar PV; 64% for large-scale solar; and 41% for land-based wind energy. Last year, over two thirds of new US electric power came from wind and solar PV.

Offshore Wind

The first (tiny) offshore wind farm in the US is built! off the coast of Rhode Island.

As of 2015, the Interior Department has auctioned 14.6 gigawatts-worth of offshore leases on the east coast. A major 194-turbine farm is moving forward for NYC and many others are in the early stages of development.

Earlier this month, DOE released a National Offshore Wind Strategy, with a goal of producing 86 gigawatts - enough electricity for 23 million homes. Offshore wind farms would serve population centers along our Atlantic and Pacific coasts, the Great Lakes and Hawaii.

Over the next five years, DOE and Interior will support development of improved turbine designs, siting and safety guidelines, and facilitate cooperation among federal agencies to accelerate the process.

Leading Cities

Over the summer, Salt Lake City formally committed to reach 100% renewable energy by 2032 and to cut carbon emissions 80% by 2040 under Climate Positive 2040.

It joins a dozen cities with a 100% commitment, including San Diego (by 2035) and San Francisco (by 2020). Sierra Club's "Ready for 100" campaign plans to sign 50 cities up by the end of this year.

Going Forward

In 12 years, batteries that store energy at utility scale will be as widespread as solar panels are now, revolutionizing the way people use energy, says Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

And in 15 years, renewables (including hydro) will overtake fracked gas, becoming the dominant energy source in the US!, they project.

Act Now #BeforeTheFlood:For every use of #BeforeTheFlood across Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram between October 24 – November 18, 21st Century Fox and National Geographic will together donate $1 to Pristine Seas and $1 to the Wildlife Conservation Society, up to $50,000 to each organization.

About Before the Flood:Before the Flood, directed by Fisher Stevens, captures a three-year personal journey alongside Academy Award-winning actor and U.N. Messenger of Peace Leonardo DiCaprio as he interviews individuals from every facet of society in both developing and developed nations who provide unique, impassioned and pragmatic views on what must be done today and in the future to prevent catastrophic disruption of life on our planet.

About National Geographic:National Geographic is the world's premium destination for science, exploration, and adventure. Through their world-class scientists, photographers, journalists, and filmmakers, Nat Geo gets you closer to the stories that matter and past the edge of what's possible.

Only a radical change in how Americans (and others) live can reduce carbon emissions. A carbon tax will do next to nothing in reducing carbon consumption but it will send the message that it is OK to pollute if you can pay for it. It will also send the message that since it is now taxed we don't have worry about carbon in the atmosphere any more.

I will not be voting for this well meaning but simple minded proposition that would cost me seventy five bucks a year just to drive. The way the machinery of society works it could soon be a mark of status to conspicuously consume carbon just because you have the money to do so.

Typical American bullshit thinking economic manipulations can fix everything. This is lip service and liable to interfere with effacious solutions which actually can make a difference.

I expect grief from Agelbert about this and I don't care.

:coffee:

Quote

"This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels."

-- President Lyndon B. Johnson, Feb. 2, 1965

Quote

"God always forgives, but the earth does not. Take care of the earth so it does not respond with destruction,"

-- Pope Francis, at a UN conference in Rome, Nov. 19, 2014

Seems I am not alone, my greatest objection is the burden would be cleverly shifted to the poor. - K-Dog

From: http://www.progressivevotersguide.com/Vote NO on I-732Initiative 732 has divided groups committed to fighting climate change. It would reduce carbon pollution by taxing it and cut other taxes by a similar amount. Although it’s well-intended, puts a strong price on carbon emissions, and tackles an incredibly urgent problem, it has some serious flaws that have generated strong opposition from many progressive groups that are committed to reducing carbon pollution. Opponents have several concerns:

Although I-732 is supposed to be revenue neutral, drafters inadvertently created huge additional tax breaks for companies like Boeing so it would cost more than it will bring in. A recent state budget analysis has determined that these tax breaks would cost taxpayers approximately $797 million over six years. As a result, I-732 would blow a giant hole in the state budget at a time when we are already failing to adequately fund schools, health care, and other essential services. It fails to invest any carbon tax revenue in clean energy sources. Increasing our use of clean energy like solar and wind power is a critical part of fighting climate change, as well as decreasing our use of fossil fuels. In addition, it fails to limit carbon pollution or to enforce the carbon pollution reductions already required by law. I-732 proponents failed to engage communities of color and workers – the ones disproportionately impacted by climate change -- in developing an approach to provide an economically just transition away from fossil fuels. The result is an initiative that does not adequately address their priorities and faces strong opposition from groups representing communities of color and labor unions.

I-732 supporters argue the urgency of fighting climate change compels us to act immediately and that we can’t afford to wait for a different proposal. Although we are highly motivated to reduce carbon pollution and appreciate the sentiments of the initiative's supporters, I-732’s flaws are serious enough that we – like most statewide environmental groups - cannot support the proposal.

We look forward to working with a wide range of advocates to create and pass a stronger plan to fight climate change in the near future.ProgressiveOpponentsFuse WA, Washington State Labor Council, OneAmerica Votes, Front and Centered, Puget Sound Sage, Progreso, Children's Alliance

Other groups that do not support I-732: Washington Conservation Voters, Washington Environmental Council, Sierra Club

Beware Greeks bearing gifts.

If it is NOT really a carbon tax, but a scheme to put the burden of paying for pollution on the poor, then I am in agreement with you.

But we cannot avert our eyes from the fact that the unsustainable status quo of energy source exploitation already puts the burden of most of the health downsides from fossil fuel and mining pollution on the poor. The S.C.C. (Social Cost of Carbon)_ is disproportionately born by the poorest in the USA and in the rest of the world.

K-Dog, you and I don't see eye to eye on some issues like the level of police racism, but we are generally on the same page as to the environmental destruction going on. I apologize for berating you in the past on the social Cost of Carbon. I am way to passionate for my own good on that subject.

The problem with pricing carbon is that the most powerful energy lobbies want to game the carbon tax so that we-the-people pay for the cleanup. So, yeah, it's just like them to call something a "carbon tax" that is nothing of the kind and is elitist instead of egalitarian.

But that doesn't take away the problem. The problem is that pollution is degrading the biosphere. So, in a sane world, you recognize that you are in a hole, and you stop digging.

Which means, ANYONE that uses polluting energy should pay for ameliorating the effects of that pollution proportionately. But the fossil fuel industry does not want to hear that because they use much more fossil fuels than they advertise in their exploitation of fossil fuels, be they coal, oil or gas. This is the dirty little (actually it's HUGE) secret to their gamed ERoEI numbers. Fossil fuels, when all the energy inputs are computed, are energy return negative. It's only because of their massive "subsidies" that they can claim a competitive product.

What I am saying is that, in a sane world, you and I would NOT pay anything for fossil fuel welfare queen "subsidies" (as we do NOW 24/7), but would pay X Carbon Tax on a fossil fuel product such as gasoline or "natural" (fossil, not from truly natural methanogenic life forms) gas and such ONLY if we are in the business of extracting fossil fuels for refining and marketing.

THEN, the fossil fuel industry can only sell the product at the correct price. But, if TPTB want to pass the buck from the fossil fuel industry straight to us, then it is obviously a scam every bit as heinous as the present "subsidy" structure.

The status quo is not sustainable. Reality will out. The poorest are already paying the highest price for the biosphere degradation for short term fossil fuel profits.

We can transition rationally and equitably or we can transition with a cascade of collapse events forcing the polluters kicking and screaming to stop polluting. Those are the only two futures that are realistic.

I think you would prefer a rational transition.

Logged

Leges Sine Moribus VanaeFaith, if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Over and over the solution to abrupt climate change always needs to be in a way to keep this "heat engine" (check my other video with Professor Tim Garrett) of industrial civilization going. All civilizations have failed before us, and this, the most destructive civilization of all, will for sure. There is no solution to death. Most people forget that only Mother Nature could give us a solution, if any. One solution is like Mike Sliwa said, "stop controlling".

There is no controlling Mother Nature. YES, there is a solution for abrupt climate change, "to help and let Mother Nature be". I think the message from Dr. Guy McPherson is the best way going forward in dealing with this subject, and as he says, "some species might make it thru the bottle neck of extinction, and you can help".

If there is a solution it will NOT be done by us Humans but by Mother Nature alone, without our interference. If there is a 0.001% chance of a solution, it will again be only this, "to let Mother Nature be and help Mother Nature do it's own thing in any possible way and see what happens". I personally don't see any way out of this predicament, Mother Nature is in charge of us all. But if you can't live without a solution, then i recommend helping the living planet. If you want a goal going forward in life, i recommend following and maybe joining the green resistance movements and helping the species that surround you (check my other video "A Last Stand" featuring Derrick Jensen). This is not about the future of civilization but about the future of the living planet. Don't be hubris like the rest of the population. Let us be nature's warriors. All of us will die at some point, there is no escape. Thanks for watching. Produced by Marc Haneburght.

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Paul Douglas is reaching out as a man of faith and a meteorologist to talk to evangelicals about climate change.

The former WCCO chief meteorologist has co-written a new book titled “Caring for Creation,” and it aims to show readers a faith-based response to the global environmental problem.

Douglas, who was a guest on WCCO Sunday Morning, said his book in an attempt to reframe the discussion about climate change into something beyond just the science, which he describes as undeniable.

“You can pile on the science, but at some point, people tune out the science,” Douglas said. “But if you frame this under the guise of clean energy, energy freedom, energy security…it’s framing the story in a way that resonates and appeals to peoples’ faith.”

Douglas says that Christians, as stewards of the Earth, have a moral obligation to do something about climate change and the threat it poses to the world.

Quote

“In Matthew, Jesus said, ‘What you did not do for the least of these you did not do for me'”…Those with the least, the poorest among us, are the first to feel the impacts [of climate change],” he said.

Effects such as rising sea levels, flooding and water shortages could cause massive, global migration, dwarfing the current refugee crisis in Europe.

“We ignore [climate change] at our peril,” Douglas said. “I ask people, Do you love your kids? They say, Of course I love my kids. I say, well, do this for your kids and their kids…They are going to wonder what you did.”

Wouldn't it be amazing if teenagers could derailTrump and the GOP's fossil fuel agenda?

In a huge victory , 21 teenagers who filed a climate change lawsuit against the federal government will have their day in court.

They are suing the government for not taking effective action on climate change - which requires an end to the production and combustion of fossil fuels - claiming this violates their constitutional rights to life and liberty. They want the court to order President Obama to immediately implement a national plan that lowers atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to 350 ppm by 2100.

Three fossil fuel trade associations joined the US government to fight the case. In April, a federal judge rebuffed their calls to dismiss the case and this month, another federal judge refused again to throw the case out.

That means, the teenagers and the federal government will go to trial over climate change.

Climate scientist James Hansen and the Global Catholic Climate Movement, which includes Pope Francis, are also parties to the lawsuit.

Quote

"Youth stand together , and even as the seas are rising... so are we," says 17-year-old, Victoria Barrett.

"My generation is rewriting history. We're doing what so many people told us we were incapable of doing: holding our leaders accountable for their disastrous and dangerous actions. I and my co-plaintiffs are demanding justice for our generation and justice for all future generations. This is going to be the trial of our lifetimes," says 16-year-old Xiuhtezcatl Martinez.

In her decision in favor of the plaintiffs, Oregon District Court Judge Ann Aiken notes, "Federal courts too often have been cautious and overly deferential in the arena of environmental law and the world has suffered for it."

"Now we must ask the court to require the government to reduce fossil fuel emissions at a rate consistent with the science," says Dr. James Hansen.

Since the Obama administration is on its way out and can't implement any strategy without facing reversal from a Republican majority, we hope this case can apply to the new government when it takes over. Lawsuits filed in every state will also move forward, demanding state legislatures take science-based action on climate change. They have already won cases in Washington State and Massachusetts.

For similar cases across the world, read our article: Momentum Builds for Court Action on Climate Change. '